The Apron Again

[Steven Russell]

Would it be asking too much for you to translate the above post into English, Phil?

[Phil Carter]

Some cannot accept the reality, they need the fantasy.

Its what's driving the serious study of this case backwards and deeper into the sewer of untruth and falsity. No wonder we are regarded as cranks.

All in the name of the victims.

Leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Monty

....and this is what is driving the wheels of the magic roundabout called Ripperology. Peopje too blind to see the wood for the trees, afraid to step off the fence of safety, accept anxthing wrong in the slightest and naively thinking that men in power dont keep schtumm at all costr if they have to, (History is full of it- a Swede has shown that with Wikileaks)



The serious study IS continuing WITHOUT the efforts of the few trying in vain to stop it by pouring scorn over it as shown again above. It is THIS approach that does no good by doing nvthing bu belittle plausibilities by calling them fantasies..

Knives on tables? How about made up photos (MJK 3) Not to mention a senior policemen parading an album of victims photographs taken from the archives and pqesented in an album that nobody has ever seen before, asking the question why a photo album only contained 7 photos and what else has been nicked and by whom along the way.

Bad taste in the mouth? I should say so. "there is nothing at all wrong with what we have been given" is a bile producing load of rubbish carried about by those who THINK they can keep the same old pot boiling.

News from the archives. The pot dried up yeas ago. Like it or not, more and more people are finding more and more holes in the safety net.

IE there was something untoward, it is nothing shocking, politicians and people in a position of self believed power have done it for centuries. In Ripperology, no one is in power anymore. The select group of those with knowledge and opinion is now a world wide group, not just a few. And nn person belongs to an "elite" group. Quote SPE "THERE IS NO ELITE IN RIPPEROLOGY" no matter how pompous. Perhaps Mr Souden disagrees with Mr Evans?

He wheels of the "MELVILE 3" fell off ages ago-(thank you Mr Sugden for the initial push) and that is why the staid ideas are no longer applicable.

Shame. For the victims families who want some kind of answer, some are trying. Others belittle and bemoan like a protective net ready to caste aside anything possibly naughty.

So what IF the apron piece was dumped by Eddowes herself? It only means that the whole story of the supposed single maniac doing it is out of the window. Therefore a major rethink is needed. Likewise an accomplice doing it. Whoever that could have been. Both are plausible.

Just because some refuse to see doesnt mean we who do should be blind to it. The blind nolonger lead the blind- only themselves- into ...nowhere. Just like the efforts of those who belittle the point in legal battles to get whatever scraps of info that are still extant.

Best wishes

Phil

[Steven Russell]

I think it is pertinent to this argument to find out what sort of state the streets were in. Was there rubbish all over the place or were they relatively clean? If the former then PC Long is to be applauded for spotting the apron piece at all and forgiven for possibly missing it on his first pass. If the latter then that's a different matter.

Best wishes,
Steve.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Long claimed not to know of the murder when he actually found the apron and graffiti. Not just when he went around earlier.

It's unclear.

Apparently he knew before proceeding to the police station, but it's not clear as to when he was informed and by whom.

Regardless, Long didn't connect the apron to Eddowes, which in turn suggests he wasn't expecting to find anything there relating to Eddowes.

So, according to Long there's no reason for him to be particularly dilligent beyond his normal duties. Was he searching every single doorway? If so, then that's some beat; if not, then there's no reason for hm to search that particular doorway and so it must have been visible from the footpath; and it follows how then did he miss it first time round?

[Lechmere]

Long claimed not to know of the murder when he actually found the apron and graffiti. Not just when he went around earlier.

[lynn cates]

the beat goes on

Hello Neil.

"Halse didn't have a 'beat'"

Exactly. And anyone not on a beat would perhaps not look as carefully as one who did.

" [he] had every right to be in the Met territory of Goulston Street."

Although I'm not sure what a "right" is, whatever it is, I'm sure he had a right to be there--or any other place he bloody well desired. But surely one is less observant when away from home territory?

Cheers.
LC

[Monty]

Hello Mac.

"Halse said he wouldn't necessarily have seen it"

Of course, There's a possibly good reason for that--this was not only not part of Halse's beat, but it wasn't even his jurisdiction.

Cheers.
LC

Meaning?

Halse didn't have a 'beat' and had every right to be in the Met territory of Goulston Street.

How many times must this be mentioned?

Monty

[lynn cates]

not his beat

Hello Mac.

"Halse said he wouldn't necessarily have seen it"

Of course, There's a possibly good reason for that--this was not only not part of Halse's beat, but it wasn't even his jurisdiction.

Cheers.
LC

[Fleetwood Mac]

So we question Longs integrity without giving him the benefit of error?

The first time around Long wasn't aware of any murder.

Monty

My logic would be:

1) Long states it wasn't there.
2) In order to conclude this he must have taken the same actions at 2.20 and 2.55, otherwise Long could not have been certain of it not being there.
3) If Long takes the same actions, then how does he miss it first time round but see it second time round?

Put simply, in order to state, at an inquest, that it wasn't there then he really should have been sure about that. Halse said he wouldn't necessarily have seen it, so surely the same applies to Long?

[Hunter]

Hi All,

At what time did Dr. Brown fit the missing piece of apron "which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body"?

Eddowes was stripped upon her arrival at Golden Lane mortuary [3.15 - 3.30 am?], yet almost two hours later when Dr. Brown left the mortuary at 5.20 pm, Dr. Phillips, who had taken possession of the missing piece of apron at Leman Street police station, had yet to arrive [Lloyds Weekly News, 30th September].

Forgive me if I am misunderstanding the question, but I believe it was the Lloyds reporter who left at 5:20 (a.m. not p.m.). They make no mention when Dr. Gordon left.

'...At twenty minutes past five, when we left the mortuary, after the interview most kindly accorded by Dr. Gordon Brown, there was an expectation on the part of the police that Dr. Phillips, who gave the important evidence in connection with the case of Annie Chapman, would speedily arrive there...'

McWilliams stated in his Home Office report of Oct. 27 that sometime in the early morning of Sept. 30 that he "... went to the Mortuary in Golden Lane, where the body had been taken by the direction of Dr. Gordon Brown and saw the piece of apron- which was found in Goulstone Street- compared with a piece the deceased was wearing & it exactly corresponded..."

[lynn cates]

Iago

Hello Mac.

"Whichever way you go here, there's some explaining to do."

Indeed. Very astute observation.

Sounds to me like Iago and the handkerchief.

Cheers.
LC

[Monty]

So we question Longs integrity without giving him the benefit of error?

The first time around Long wasn't aware of any murder.

Monty

[Fleetwood Mac]

The only point I'd make, Monty, is this:

If we go with Long missing the apron first time round, even though he is adamant it wasn't there, then what are we saying about Long?

[Monty]

Harsh words considering:

a) If the apron is there at 2.20, and PC Long misses it, then quite clearly PC Long isn't looking in the nooks and the crannies of doorways on his beat. So, with this in mind, how does he spot at 2.55?

b) If Jack places it there between 2.20 and 2.55, then where is he for a good hour?

Whichever way you go here, there's some explaining to do.

Edited to add:

Long is adamant he would have seen it first time round, so that tells us that whatever action he took to spot the apron, he did the same thing 35 minutes earlier. He could have said: "well, I didn't look that way first time round, but did the second time". Which he didn't.

There's a difference between placing reasonable doubt and claiming cover up and conspiracy FM.

You do the former above.

Monty

[Fleetwood Mac]

Harsh words considering:

a) If the apron is there at 2.20, and PC Long misses it, then quite clearly PC Long isn't looking in the nooks and the crannies of doorways on his beat. So, with this in mind, how does he spot at 2.55?

b) If Jack places it there between 2.20 and 2.55, then where is he for a good hour?

Whichever way you go here, there's some explaining to do.

Edited to add:

Long is adamant he would have seen it first time round, so that tells us that whatever action he took to spot the apron, he did the same thing 35 minutes earlier. He could have said: "well, I didn't look that way first time round, but did the second time". Which he didn't.